Vladimir Dremlyuga

Studied at Leningrad State University, but was expelled for ‘conduct unbecoming of a Soviet student’ after attempting to collect signatures for a letter criticising Nikita Khrushchev. Worked as a railway electrician and newspaper correspondent. Political prisoner, dissident.

On 25 August 1968, he took part in the ‘Demonstration of the Seven’ on Red Square in protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops. He was arrested there and sentenced to the longest term among the defendants–three years in prison.

1960s

‘The Demonstration of the Seven’Dissidents

Reading time: 4 minutes

The Final Statement

‘I know that my voice will sound dissonant against the backdrop of the general silence, which is called ‘nationwide support for the policies of the Party and the government’. I am glad that there were people who joined me in expressing their protest. If they had not been there, I would have gone out onto Red Square alone.’

I do not know whether it is customary to choose an epigraph for a final statement, but, if it is, I would take as my epigraph the words of Anatole France from ‘The Opinions of Jérôme Coignard’: ‘Do you really think you can entice me with the deceptive chimera of a government made up of honest men who erect such fortifications around freedom that it will hardly be possible to make use of it?’

Since the age of 17, I have actively participated in protests against the policies of the Party and the government–including against a certain Nikita Sergeyevich–whenever I disagreed with them. I know that I will be interrupted, and therefore I must choose my words carefully.

Judge: Not interrupted, but admonished.

All my conscious life, I have wanted to be a citizen, that is, a person who calmly and proudly expresses his thoughts. For ten minutes, I was a citizen. I know that my voice will sound dissonant against the backdrop of the general silence, which is called ‘nationwide support for the policies of the Party and the government’. I am glad that there were people who joined me in expressing their protest. If they had not been there, I would have gone out onto Red Square alone. If there had been other methods, I would have used them. I am convinced that in Czechoslovakia after the January Plenum of the Central Committee…

Prosecutor: The defendant Dremlyuga is not charged in connection with the events in Czechoslovakia.

Judge: The Court asks you not to dwell on your convictions. Take this admonition into account.

Yesterday, the prosecutor devoted two-thirds of his speech to reading editorials from Pravda. In the introductory part of his speech, he also touched upon Košice, Lidice, and the Hungarian events…

Judge: You may not criticise the prosecutor’s speech, especially its introductory part.

It is precisely this part that I wanted to address. It is precisely in the introductory part that he proves that we deserve punishment. The prosecutor said that some people do not understand that the occupation of Czechoslovakia was an act of ‘fraternal assistance’.

The prosecutor attempts to interrupt.

Don’t interrupt me! (Agitation in the courtroom.) I want to ask how the citizen prosecutor would have reacted…

Prosecutor: I object. The defendant has no right to ask questions. Explain this to him.

Judge: Take this admonition into account. I warn you once again: do not dwell on your convictions.

But, unfortunately, it is precisely my convictions that brought me here. And therefore I cannot avoid touching upon them. I believe that this trial, like other trials, and Stalinism…

Prosecutor: The defendant Dremlyuga has been charged with specific offences, and he must address precisely those charges. Other, earlier events are not being considered in this trial.

The judge admonishes him again.

I have not finished my sentence; I want to finish it.

Judge: The Court admonishes you once again.

I believe that all the phenomena listed above are caused by the absence of the right to criticise the government. It is for the sake of making this right lawful in the future that I went out onto Red Square, and I would have gone anywhere. And in the future, I will express my protest by any means. After the Congress against the Cult of Personality…

Prosecutor: I ask the Court to warn the defendant Dremlyuga that, pursuant to Article 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the defendant may be deprived of his final statement if he uses inadmissible expressions.

Judge: If you do not comply with the Court’s final instruction, we will be forced to take certain measures.

I…

Prosecutor: I ask for a five-minute recess so that the defence counsel may explain to the defendant his rights and obligations when making his final statement.

The judge declares a ten-minute recess.

(After the recess.)

In protest against this trial and many others, I refuse to make the final statement granted to me by law.

11 October 1968
Moscow City Court, Moscow, USSR.
Source: ‘My Final Statement. Speeches by Defendants at Trials, 1966–1974’,
Volnoe Slovo, samizdat, issue 14–15, Posev, 1974.